[WSIS CS-Plenary] SubCommittee A, 13 Nov - morning session

[wsis at iprolink.ch]

Dear all,

Find below a report from today's morning session in SubCommittee A.

Jette


SubCommittee A: 14 November 9:00-12:00.

Drafting group chaired by Ghana:
Language on 71g): Encouraging relevant parties to commercially negotiate
reduced interconnection costs for LDCs taking into account the special
constraints of LDCs.
Was agreed without further discussions:

WG chaired by Canada: The group had come up with 10 “common points” which
formed the basis for the discussions at the rest of the meeting:

1. Internet Governance should respect the Geneva principles as set out in
the Geneva declaration and plan of action.
2. Internet Governance includes more than Internet names and addresses,
issues dealt with by ICANN, it also includes other critical issues

(wording from WGIG report para. 12 to be considered)
3. There are many cross cutting international public policies that are not
adequately addressed with the current mechanisms which require attention.
4. Importance of maximizing the participation of developing countries for
development.
5. Countries’ legitimate interests regarding decisions affecting their
ccTLDs.
6. Importance of the stability and security of the Internet.
7. Finding solutions to issues arising from the use and misuse of the
Internet of particular concern to everyday users.
8. Any Internet Governance approach should continue  to promote an enabling
environment for innovation, competition and investment
9. Agreement  to creation of a forum (function) (pending conclusion of
discussions on Internet Governance and determination of its mandate) (based
in multistakeholder participation).
10. the need for governments, on an equal footing, to be able to carry out
their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues
pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical operation
of arrangements.

Saudi Arabia: Proposal for point 10: “The need for a new cooperation model
to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out
”

Australia oppose Saudi Arabian amendment: The need for a new cooperation
model has not been proven – should base on existing models. 

Ghana propose amendment to point 4 – “
 and taking into account the
specific interests in Internet Governance.”

US: supports Australia’s concern about the Saudi Arabian amendment.

Australia: Where does this document fit into the actual text?

Chair: First reactions and then we decide where the paper stands.

Saudi Arabia proposes that its proposal for point 10 is put in square
brackets as in point 9. There is two views on both

Chair: We are not negotiating text. Will not amend the text, put their
views are heard.

South Africa support Saudi Arabian proposal and proposes amendment to point
5: “The need for an oversight mechanism that addresses
”

US: sufficiently mechanisms currently within ICANN – no need for an
oversight mechanism. Will not accept the amendment.

Chair: There should be no oversight at all? Or there could be a reference
to oversight, but not in this words or in this

US: Oversight not necessary. There is existing mechanisms today for
discussions. 

Saudi Arabia: Need for new model for cooperation between private sector
technical operation and governments’ public policies.
Point 5: the key question if the existing models are sufficient or not.
Existing models does not give nations suvereignity over their ccTLDs.

Brazil: According to US we already have a place for oversight, but the
place (GAC) is only an advisory council that has no power to decide. We can
delete the word oversight, but we need a mechanism where countries can
discuss their own ccTLDs
UK: two proposals for para 5 
Delete “oversight”, what we need is an “improved mechanism”
Amend “Countries should not be involved in decision on other countries
ccTLDs”
Para 10: “the need for a new cooperation model building on existing
structures”

US: want to underscore the existing opportunities of governments to manage
ccTLD as they wish: retain authority, give it over to private sector,
universities – flexility in the existing system.
New cooperation model: signals “a new intergovernmental model” – do not
support this or find it necessary.
To Brazilian intervention: GAC is an advisory body – that provide advices
to a board that is international and elected. Invite Brazil to make
proposal for the GAC at meeting in December.

Saudi Arabia: Approve South African proposal on point 5 + EU proposal on
this point. 
Problem is broader than ccTLDs – oversight mechanism should also deal with
gTLDs

Venezuela: We should refer to “mechanism” and “responsibilities”
Support South African proposal for point 5 (need for a mechanism)
Support proposal for point 10 (need for new cooperation model).

Japan: Each country should manage its own ccTLD – we should not set up a
new mechanism

Australia: Associate with US on point 5 and 10 + with Japan.
There is a cooperation model in place and it has worked well. Priority is
to ensure that it works well and ongoing 

UK in response to US intervention: replace “oversight” or “improved” with
“a flexible mechanism” in point 5.
Point 10: EU is willing to consider other words if “a new cooperation
model” is itself a problem for the US.

Brazil: ICANN is interested to hear the ideas of the GAC, but we depend on
ICANN to implement our suggestions. Want a more efficient GAC – “a GAC
without the A.”
Chair: instead of alternative mechanism – could a genuine reform of GAC
satisfy you?
How can a body ask for independence if it needs a supervisor to say yes or
no? 

Iran:
Respond to chair question: what is the ceiling for improvement of GAC? Can
it go beyond its advisory role? We can enhance the role of governments in
GAC, but GAC remains an advisory body.

Switzerland:
Questions if not if our wishes is reflected, but if we can live with the
wording.
Support EU wording “improved mechanism” – we will never agree on the word
“oversight”
+ amendment “Countries should not be involved in decision on other
countries ccTLDs”
how are we assured that GAC will improve at the meeting in December – need
for minimum of guarantee that this will happen

Columbia:
Obvious that present structures are deficient – no decision-making
possibility for governments
Support “improved and flexible” 

South Africa respond to US on ccTLD: Need for a mechanism to address
problems. We should lay the ground for an equal footing.

Trinidad and Tobago: Para 5 – not just administration of ccTLDs, but
participation in decision-making. Mechanism must be maintained in the text.

US on including gTLDs: would like a clarification on why they are put in
same category as ccTLD. 
Two points: 1) ICANN can take its own initiative or respond to initiatives
of the GAC. Has specifically asked for the views of the GAC in the past. 2)
No institutions can change without the initiative of its members – invite
members of GAC to make proposals at the December meeting. No initiative –
no change will be brought about. 
Survey by Internet Society: members commented on the 4 models and not one
was supported. Interpret is as there is no need for a new model.
There is an ongoing cooperation at the technical level, which should be
encouraged.

Israel: different countries have different approaches to the management of
ccTLD - flexibility. Associated with US, Japan and Australia.
 
Samoa supports Japan, US, Australia and Israel. No need for a new
cooperation model. WSIS should be causious with establish
Point 5: “The need to improve existing mechanisms
”

China: Support the establishment of an oversight mechanism – improved
mechanism cannot be accepted
Support Saudi Arabia on the need for a new cooperation model.

Australia: There has been evolutions within ICANN – is able to evolve
(letter from ICANN’s chair is prove of this). We need to recognize that
there is other stakeholders involved – should keep this in mind.
Cooperation model – should be cooperation between all . Does not see the
present text as common ground. 

Chair: there is problems on two out of ten points (point 5 and 10). Need to
move on to discussions on point 9, which is bracketed. 
Read aloud from letter from the chairman of ICANN: how can the role of
governments be strengthened within existing multistakeholder structures.
How can governments’ concerns best be addressed and how can cooperation
with GAC be improved – invite to a discussion.

Uruguay: Substitute “oversight” with “improved” could be a way out +
alternative text on new cooperation model.

Indonisia supports South African proposal on point 5 and Saudi Arabian
proposal on point 10 and proposes to Amend Tunis Commitment to point 1.
Proposes a working group that could reformulate point 10.

Singapore tries to reinforce commonalities. Point 5: ccTLDs are the
countries’ flags/suvereinity in cyberspace – nobody seems to disagree that
this is a legitimate interest. Proposes new language:
“Countries legitimate interest as expressed and defined by country
regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs should be respected and upheld
through a flexible and improved framework. Countries should not be involved
in decisions on other countries ccTLDs.”
Disagreement on whether change should come from outside or within GAC.
Singapore believe it is possible to make improvements within GAC. Is
encouraged by the letter from the chair of ICANN.

Brazil refers to Swiss intervention: we do not have a guarantee that GAC
will change. Would like to hear the views of the chair of ICANN at the next
meeting if he is here.

Chair will talk to ICANN representatives about making a presentation at
next meeting.

Saudi Arabia?: prefer original wording in point 5 (to proposal made by
Singapore). Amendment of gTLDs in the text.

Korea: wants improvement within existing structures.

Ghana: “improved and flexible mechanism” does suggest movement. Another
format that will allow the active participation and inclusion that they
have asked for. Propose the end of the first quarter of 2006 as the
timeline for the establishment of a forum. Forum should be a part of the
ongoing dialogue after Tunis.

Chair asks delegation to focus on point 9 – the mandate of the forum. When
should it be established and how long should its mandate continue?

Brazil: 
-Forum as interface with intergovernmental and other bodies. 
- Identify emerging issues and direct them to the attention of the relevant
bodies.
- Make proposal for action on issues that are not covered elsewhere.
- Contribute to capacity building of developing countries
- Time frame for establishment – not later than African proposal.
- timeframe for the end of its work – should be decided by the forum itself

Canada:
-	Focused on capacity building
-	Involve all stakeholders
-	Not replace existing institutions
-	Not involved in day-to-day operation
-	Periodically reviews –  its continuation should be reviewed after 5 years.
-	Prepared to accept African proposal for timeframe.

Uruguay: Brazilian and Canadian lists are good bases for discussion.
It should be possible for the forum to self-assess its continuation.
Timeframe for establishment seems appropriate.

Ghana proposes amendment: “The forum should review in-depth the general
policies of Internet Governance. Such a framework should facilitate
participation for all stakeholders. We call upon UNSG to organize the forum
before the end of the first quarter of 2006.”

UK/EU: Interested in Canada’s wording. Should be specified that the forum
is not intended to be involved in oversight of the Internet and the
day-to-day technical operation.

Chair asks governments to continue consultations. He will try to prepare a
paper based on this morning’s discussions. First reading this afternoon and
then they will set up drafting groups. Hope to have text ready by 7 pm.

Stakeholder interventions:

CCBI: Active engagement in the multiple for a that already exist.
Participation of all stakeholders on an equal footing. Not establish a new
institution that will drain resources.

CS Internet Governance Caucus: Purpose of forum:
-	foster inclusive dialogue between all stakeholders
-	make practical recommendations for action
Opposes Canadian proposal that limits the focus to development and capacity
building. Would ghettoize the forum as a meaningful tool for dialogue.
No single government should have an eminent role. ICANN should be a global,
independent body.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .